Subscriber richie459 Posted September 26, 2014 Subscriber Share Posted September 26, 2014 Think I wil stick to the iTunes cover. Poor choice in my opinion...I'm pretty open mined but its just odd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber jenmusic Posted September 26, 2014 Subscriber Share Posted September 26, 2014 I just think its ment to be photographed this way. Art is on this world to raise discussion. Everybody sees something else! Look at artists like van Gogh. He sold only one painting in his living years. He was way ahead of his time. His work got very famous after his death... In his living years he was very poor and couldn't convince anyone to sell his paintings. Other people didn't think he was that good... I can see the innocence in the work of the photographer. Thinking about the early days. I really like it. (I really love black and white photography) But I also understand that some people see something else in it. Thats just a part of who we are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber BigBunny Posted September 26, 2014 Subscriber Share Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) I love the album cover also, anything is better than the NLOTH cover, worst U2 cover ever! boring as... whatever bores you. I'd rather watch my cacti grow than look at the cover of NLOTH, having said that, the music is great on the album. Wasn't a big fan of transvestite U2 either! (nothing against that grouping of course....just not my thang then or today!...) - but hey, the music still stacks up for me - that's the main thing. Bono & Edge make the worst women!! ha ha Adam & Larry get away with it Edited September 26, 2014 by BigBunny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Anjana Posted September 26, 2014 Subscriber Share Posted September 26, 2014 I just think its ment to be photographed this way. Art is on this world to raise discussion. Everybody sees something else! Look at artists like van Gogh. He sold only one painting in his living years. He was way ahead of his time. His work got very famous after his death... In his living years he was very poor and couldn't convince anyone to sell his paintings. Other people didn't think he was that good... I can see the innocence in the work of the photographer. Thinking about the early days. I really like it. (I really love black and white photography) But I also understand that some people see something else in it. Thats just a part of who we are Good point Jen, art is subjective, probably a good thing we see it in different ways, that is the nature of art, open to individual interpretation - I didn't think of it like that . The fact that's it's causing discussion already is perhaps a positive sign for a piece of artwork. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1043 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) Larry is the father and he could be protecting him but he's also hugging his son as if Larry was a child, so this is why Larry is kneeling down? I would think when one adult hugs another adult, both should be standing. However, when my 9 year old niece gives me a hug, her face is against my stomach because she is not as tall as I am. So I could see him kneeling down for this matter. Edited September 26, 2014 by chris1043 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1043 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 I just think its ment to be photographed this way. Art is on this world to raise discussion. Everybody sees something else! Look at artists like van Gogh. He sold only one painting in his living years. He was way ahead of his time. His work got very famous after his death... In his living years he was very poor and couldn't convince anyone to sell his paintings. Other people didn't think he was that good... I can see the innocence in the work of the photographer. Thinking about the early days. I really like it. (I really love black and white photography) But I also understand that some people see something else in it. Thats just a part of who we are Good point Jen, art is subjective, probably a good thing we see it in different ways, that is the nature of art, open to individual interpretation - I didn't think of it like that . The fact that's it's causing discussion already is perhaps a positive sign for a piece of artwork. I agree with both of you. Photography is an art too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber monica martino Posted September 26, 2014 Subscriber Share Posted September 26, 2014 I like it. It reminded me immediately Boy cover and it perfectly fits the concept of the album. U2 story is entirely in that picture and Bono words (you can read them in the news) explain everything. But I can understand the pic will look weird to the mass, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Moderator mich40 Posted September 26, 2014 Community Moderator Share Posted September 26, 2014 I never thought I would find myself saying that I didn't like a picture of Larry, but I don't like this. I like the idea of it, the symbolism; but it just looks wrong. There are other ways that it could have worked out much better. And I know it's his son. I can see it now....how I will be having to defend it with people and having to say, "It's his son" over and over. I have already seem too many comments that contain the words, "gay," "pedophile," and "incest" so the photo has been tarnished for me. And while I'm all for a shirtless Larry, it's kinda hard for me to look at him against an 18-19 year old stomach. Just feels wrong. I can't even look at it and say, "that's sweet" because I think if my hubby was holding on to our son like that, I'd say, "What are you doing, weirdo?" And I think they anticipated negative feedback b/c the story doesn't have the comments on like they usually do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Anjana Posted September 26, 2014 Subscriber Share Posted September 26, 2014 I get what you mean Mich. I think it's open to misinterpretation (it's not about minds in the gutter or anything), when I first saw the picture I didn't know it was his son and I wasn't sure what to make of it, 'gay' came into my mind - not in any non-p.c or offensive way at all - just the look of the picture. When I realised who he was holding, the image took on a different context. I get the intended symbolism of it and the naked side - a zootop said to me it shows some vulnerability and I think that's true. But the image just doesn't work for me, I think it will be an unnecessary distraction from what is a very good collection of songs - and quite a bright upbeat collection. I very much like Jen's interesting comments above, it made me look at it in a different light and appreciate it more as an image that will provoke different reactions in us all. I love the cover images of both Boy and War, they were stunning images, I remember just how much War captured my eye at the time but this just doesn't feel reminiscent of that to me an it doesn't feel reminiscent of the 70/80's era either tho I get that's its supposed to reflect the very personal nature of the album. Anyway, just my penny's worth! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Moderator mich40 Posted September 26, 2014 Community Moderator Share Posted September 26, 2014 I decided that maybe it's just digging up some deep psychological issues for me because my family were so non-affectionate when I was growing up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.